I share the same experience as Monica describes. I also worked at the reference desk and have been asked for books and articles that were needed for an assignment due the next day/morning. So, ILL won't work for this type of requests especially over the weekends.

My understanding from the faculty side is that if they can't something they need from our library immediately, they most likely would contact their colleagues and friends whose work in another institutions where their libraries may carry the journals or databases they have access to. In other words, ILL is their last resort because of extra work (filling out the online request form) and additional waiting time. 

Because my wife works in a research library that subscribes more resources than my library, I occasionally asked for her help to fill urgent requests that came to me directly. So, my point is that ILL usage data is helpful but it also has its limitations for decision making.

My two cents.

Clement

Georgia Southern University Libraries 

   

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:00 PM Monica Howell <mhowell@nwhealth.edu> wrote:

My own experience as a former doctoral student (in a different program after my MLS) was that I often didn’t want to wait for an ILL, even knowing it would likely arrive quickly. If I was working on a paper due in a day or two, I needed articles right when I was working on the paper, and even a day later would be too late.

 

It's also important to keep in mind that many library patrons, even in higher ed, don’t know or don’t remember that ILL exists. I’ve talked with so many people who have mentioned a book or article they wanted to get from their library (either public or college/university) and were disappointed to find the library didn’t have that item. When I said they could get it through interlibrary loan, they’ve always said, “What’s that?” or “Oh, I forgot about that,” rather than “Yeah, I decided not to get it because….”

 

---

Monica R. Howell, MLS, EdS

Serials Librarian & Archivist, Greenawalt Library

Assistant Professor

Pronouns: she/her/hers

 

Northwestern Health Sciences University

2501 W. 84^th St., Bloomington, MN 55431

Email: mhowell@nwhealth.edu

Phone: 952-888-4777 x218

Instagram: @nwhsulib

 

From: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum <SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG> On Behalf Of McGarry, Patty
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 8:51 AM
To: SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] ILL data as basis for new subs (or not)

 

In my limited experience, many reports and in depth analysis need to be undertaken to get a clear picture.  The J2 reports can be misleading if a patron is trying to access backfile articles(so I run a seperate report on that journal to see what years the articles that were requested came from- JR_5?) , and the abstracts can be misleading if the reason the patron did not download was that they did not think the content of the article was what they were looking for in their research.

 

That being said, we feel that part of the reason patrons do not bother to ILL is that they are crunched for time, and just move to a different article.  

 

I am interested in doing a survey on our campus to try to determine the underlying reasons that researchers may "move on" - mostly because we are looking into the "pay-per view" options that some providers now offer.  Since we are a small/mid-sized institution, it does not always make financial sense for us to subscribe rather than ILL, but we are committed to trying to provide, as quickly as possible, access to scholarly material.

Patricia McGarry

Acquisitions~Periodicals Associate

Knight-Capron Library

University of Lynchburg

Lynchburg, VA 24501

 

email: mcgarry.p@lynchburg.edu

 

 

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 9:06 AM Melissa Belvadi <mbelvadi@upei.ca> wrote:

Hi, all.

 

I occasionally see an article in our professional literature about how well ILL article request data does (not) reflect likely demand, and that definitely seems to reflect our own experience from my somewhat informal analysis of our own data.

But I seem to have trouble persuading my colleagues here about this.

 

For example, I'll present JR2 turnaway data and "abstracts viewed" in EBSCO and Proquest as evidence for adding a subscription, but they'll respond that :"if they didn't bother to ILL it, then they don't really need it".

 

Has anyone done, either for publication or for internal use that you can share with me, some kind of "systematic review" on this issue?

 

Or even if you have a clear and concise explanation of why that "they didn't bother" reasoning is not an appropriate conclusion to draw, I would appreciate that too. I haven't found the right way to articulate why I think that's wrong.

Or if you agree with my colleagues, tell me that too!

 

 

Melissa Belvadi

Collections Librarian

University of Prince Edward Island

mbelvadi@upei.ca 902-566-0581

my public calendar

Make an appointment via YouCanBookMe

 

 

 

---

To unsubscribe from the SERIALST list, click the following link:
http://listserv.nasig.org/scripts/wa-NASIG.exe?SUBED1=SERIALST&A=1

 

---

To unsubscribe from the SERIALST list, click the following link:
http://listserv.nasig.org/scripts/wa-NASIG.exe?SUBED1=SERIALST&A=1

---

To unsubscribe from the SERIALST list, click the following link:
http://listserv.nasig.org/scripts/wa-NASIG.exe?SUBED1=SERIALST&A=1

---

To unsubscribe from the SERIALST list, click the following link:
http://listserv.nasig.org/scripts/wa-NASIG.exe?SUBED1=SERIALST&A=1